[JKCalhoun]

Yeah, but if I handed you a Maxfield Parrish it would be better than either of us can do — but not what I asked for.

I find generative AI frustrating because I know what I want. To this point I have been trying but then ultimately sitting it out — waiting for the one that really works the way I want.

[cube2222]

For me even if I know what I want, if I’m using gen AI I’m happy to compromise and get good enough (which again, is so much better than I could do otherwise).

If you want higher quality/precision, you’ll likely want to ask a professional, and I don’t expect that to change in the near future.

[adamc]

That limits its value for industries like Hollywood, though, doesn't it? And without that, who exactly is going to pay for this?

[cube2222]

To me, currently, visual generative ai is an evolution and improvement of stock images, and has effectively the same purpose.

People pay for stock images.

[adamc]

Yeah, maybe for some purposes. In business, people sometimes pay for stock images but often don't have the expertise or patience to really spend a lot of time coaching a video into fruition. Maybe for advertising or other contexts where more effort is worth it (not just powerpoints), but it feels like a slim audience.

[cube2222]

With tools like Apple Intelligence and its genmoji (emoji generation) and playground (general diffusion image generation) I expect it to also take on some of the current entertainment and social use-cases of stickers and GIFs.

But that’s probably something you don’t pay for directly, instead paying for e.g. a phone that has those features.

[jddj]

Advertisers, I guess. Same folks who paid for everything else around here

[adamc]

Yeah, I just question if there are enough customers to make this work.